the state of animal advocacy · production system, in turn hurting farmers, producers, and...
TRANSCRIPT
The State of Animal Advocacy
An Exploration of Various Strategies Beyond the Ethical Argument
by
Gregory Eric Finkelstein
Capstone Research Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Master of Nonprofit Administration Degree
in the School of Management
directed by Dr. Marco Tavanti
San Francisco, California
Summer 2018
Abstract
This study is an exploration of effective strategies used in animal advocacy. While ethical appeals can constitute an effective argument for some, this stance is often not enough to bring about systemic change, especially in the context of improving standards and regulations for industrial agricultural animal welfare. Producers, on average, care most about potential economic gains, so finding ways to correlate improved welfare with improved product yields is an important objective to explore. While more studies need to be done, as current ones are conflicting, it seems likely that with increased welfare, there are also increased direct costs. Strategies for addressing economic concerns include convincing producers that costs would be minimal or that when the system is examined beyond direct costs, there are actually net savings and profits.
For this to hold true, it may be essential to find ways to recycle benefits to society, such as increased public health, back to producers as compensation for their increased efforts. Further, partnerships between animal advocates and producers are an important part of both convincing other producers to increase standards and ensuring that all parties involved are able to make gains, whether those are financially or ethically driven. Considering partnerships, there is a large division in the animal advocacy community regarding philosophies of animal welfare and animal rights, which can result in suppressing infighting. Overall, animal advocacy is a complex issue, and changes in standards and regulations affect more than the animals themselves. A multifaceted approach to animal advocacy is imperative to maximize results, and the strategies uncovered in my findings have applications throughout the entire nonprofit sector.
i
Acknowledgments
I am fortunate to have had many individuals support me throughout this program, and the Capstone project. To Dr. Tavanti, all my professors, and the many USF staff who constantly supported me, thank you so much for helping me grow and gain the knowledge I need to begin achieving my goals.
My parents and family have relentlessly helped me in any way they could. Hannah Davis, David Clinnick, and Patrick Lahey, I want to thank you in particular for all your efforts that contributed to my project. Your insights and help were a large part of my completing this assignment.
Finally, Greg Justice, John Calandra, and Carol Pertowski, thank you so much for your advice and support, in this project and during all of my time at USF.
Thank you, everyone. I am a better person for having you all in my life.
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables & Figures. . . . . . . . . iii Section 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2: Literature Review . . . . . . . . 4 Section 3: Methods and Approaches . . . . . . . 11 Section 4. Data Analysis . . . . . . . . 13 Section 5: Implications and Recommendations . . . . . 24 Section 6: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 26 List of References . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix A: California's Proposition 2: "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act" (2008). 31 Appendix B: California's Proposition 12: Amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm
Animals Act (2018). . . . . . . . . 32 Author’s Bio . . . . . . . . . . 37
List of Tables & Figures
Table 1. Interviewees, Positions, and Stance on Economic Impacts . . . 13 Figure 1. Big Ag. Interpretation of the Relation Between Animal Welfare & Production 21
iii
Section 1. Introduction
In the Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle postulates:
"Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three
kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos];
the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the
third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself
[logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the
speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible" (Roberts, 1954).
Advocacy, the application of these rhetorical devices to a social and legal context, is the
means by which many who fight for ideals bring about systemic change and make lasting
impact. The orientation of advocacy towards animals is not a new concept. San Francisco’s
namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of animals and ecology, and Leonardo Da Vinci, are
but a few early animal activists that proposed society change the ways in which animals are
treated. Today, animal advocacy can be classified into two major mindsets: animal welfare and
animal rights. Efforts to improve current industrial animal treatment are led by organizations
that fall into these categories. The most common strategy employed by both of these
groups/camps is pathos and moral arguments. However, this approach is naturally self‐limited,
and does not fully utilize the three classic modes of persuasion, lacking ethos (appeal to
authority) and logos (appeal to logic and reason). The purpose of this capstone is to explore
industrial agricultural animal advocacy strategy based in modes other than pathos, particularly
examining the logical appeal of increased animal welfare as a benefit to society. Namely, it
1
explores the argument that increasing animal welfare has positive effects on the economy and
public health, and a myriad of currently used strategies are covered. Increasing animal welfare
in this context has many strong opponents and counterarguments, and it is hoped that this
project facilitates effectively addressing them. Furthermore, while this exploration is on the
topic of animal welfare, many of the principles and arguments found can be applied to various
advocacy situations, augmenting resources available to those fighting for positive change in the
world. The format of this report initially introduces the issue, then explores relevant literature
on the topic. After methods of approach are reviewed, data from interviews is presented, and
implications, results, and recommendations conclude the report.
The Problem Facing Animal Welfare
In the United States, there are roughly 100 million cattle, 110 million hogs, and 500
million chickens used for industrial agricultural purposes, mostly for procuring meat and egg
production (United States Department of Agriculture, 2011). While these 700 million animals
are subject to the welfare regulations set forth in the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, many agree
that these standards do not go nearly far enough (Ventura, 2014). While efforts have been
made to improve standards, “The meat industry in the United States is a powerful political
force, both in the legislative and the regulatory arena” (Johnson, 2018). Big Ag., as the
agricultural coalitions are collectively called, has repeatedly fought against improved welfare
regulations and production oversight, through efforts such as, “[Convincing] House Republicans
to include language in the proposed 2017 House Agricultural Appropriations bill that would
exempt agricultural commodity groups from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests”
(Huehnergarth, 2016). While Big Ag. holds great lobbying power and influence, they also
2
engage in public advocacy that promotes low animal welfare standards and regulation. Often,
they argue that increased animal welfare standards increase direct costs, which burdens the
production system, in turn hurting farmers, producers, and consumers alike. In order to
address this stance, animal advocacy groups must compose counter arguments that satisfy
multiple stakeholders and address the economic implications of improving welfare. However,
there are organizations within the animal advocacy community, including some animal rights
groups, that not only solely engage in pathos‐based welfare arguments, but will go so far as to
actually fight against improving animal welfare that correlates with economic advancement.
This division of animal advocacy groups, into animal welfare and animal rights organizations, is
possibly the largest hindrance to improving animal welfare in industrial agriculture, aside from
Big Ag. itself.
Animal Welfare versus Animal Rights
While the two animal advocacy groups both fight for the sake of animals, their
fundamental philosophies differ in ways that can be inhibiting to each other’s efforts. Overall,
the difference can be surmised as: “Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for
food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as
‘humane’ guidelines are followed” (PETA, 2018). Animal rights activists have a more Kantian‐
rooted philosophy, and as such, their arguments tend to be ethically, morally, and emotionally
charged. Alternatively, animal welfarists are considered to have a more utilitarian approach,
believing that any strategy that works is good and any improvements to animal welfare,
however small, are beneficial. The stances are well explained by Ken White, President of the
Peninsula Humane Society (PHS) Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA): “At its
3
core, the argument is whether a small step is better than nothing vs. small steps are simply not
worth taking” (K. White, personal communication, July 25, 2018). Finally, some animal rights
groups argue that improved welfare regulations do not go far enough, and actually empower
animal production and Big Ag., therefore being counterproductive to their final goal of ending
all animal use. The two groups have, at times, become fairly antagonistic, such as with regard
to California’s 2018 Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative. This infighting has
directed many funds away from animal advocacy on both sides and lessened the potential
impact both groups could have on common goals.
Section 2: Literature Review
In this capstone, various strategies for animal advocacy are explored. While the goal is
to make considerations beyond the ethical argument for increasing animal welfare posed by
many groups, it is still important to initially consider this stance and the motivation behind it.
Fraser et al. (1997) explained the main justifications commonly used as an ethical incentive to
promote animal welfare:
“At least three overlapping ethical concerns are commonly expressed regarding
the quality of life of animals: (1) that animals should lead natural lives through
the development and use of their natural adaptations and capabilities, (2) that
animals should feel well by being free from prolonged and intense fear, pain, and
other negative states, and by experiencing normal pleasures, and (3) that
animals should function well, in the sense of satisfactory health, growth and
4
normal functioning of physiological and behavioural systems” (Fraser et al,
1997).
Beyond this stance, the economic, public health, partnership benefits, and more must be
considered to maximally impact animal advocacy with a multifaceted approach. Several of the
strategies and logic behind animal advocacy arguments are explained below.
Animal Welfare Influences on Economics
Potentially, one of the most important aspects of animal advocacy that must be
addressed is the economic implication of increasing animal welfare. This is a hotly debated
topic and is the basis for the most prominent arguments used by Big Ag. corporations against
improving standards. In general, production corporations and Big Ag. lobbyists claim that
improving welfare regulations would increase costs to the degree that farmers, producers,
organizations, and consumers are negatively impacted. Direct production costs, though often
minimal, do increase, as well as, incurring initial costs associated with updating practices and
systems. In a study which highlighted the correlation between increased animal welfare and
direct production costs, Vetter et. al (2014) explained the relationship. Vetter noted that,
“Changes in farm animal welfare standards impact production costs first. Animal welfare
regulations mostly require alterations that carry substantial extra costs. Therefore, statutory
deadlines for adaptation are often quite long” (Vetter, 2014). With regard to direct production
costs only, costs tend to increase with improved animal welfare. However, the authors argued
that there is also a point at which decreasing animal welfare further would lead to large and
rapid increased costs, considering loss associated with disease and mistreatment. Generally, if
companies are not concerned with welfare, and only with maximizing apparent profits, they will
5
seek regulations that offer the minimum welfare standards, just above the threshold where
losses begin to overshadow the increase in production cost. Vetter (2014) carefully noted that
this relationship excludes other potential economic gains to a larger system than direct inputs
and outputs.
Temple Grandin’s impacts on improving animal welfare in industrial animal agriculture
cannot be overstated. In fact, for her contributions to improved cattle management efficiency
and welfare, among many other contributions, she was inducted into the list of the 100 most
influential people, published by Time Magazine in 2010. Grandin is in the perfect position to
evaluate direct costs on the factory floor, since, in addition to being an animal welfare
professor, she is employed by major producers to maximize both welfare and efficiency.
Grandin has published many studies correlating improved animal welfare with improved capital
gains, both direct and indirect. In her book, Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach,
she compiled most of her studies, and drew on them to formulate convincing arguments in
favor of animal welfare. In chapter 14, the Effect of Economic Factors on the Welfare of
Livestock and Poultry, Grandin (2015) argued that there are five major ways that producers,
consumers, and the economy benefit directly from increased animal welfare standards:
1. There are great improvements to product quality.
2. It increases employee safety from accident reduction while stunning or handling.
3. It decreases labor costs, since well‐handled animals move more easily than those
poorly handled.
4. It significantly decreases expensive ‘line stoppages,’ a.k.a. a delay from stunning or
handling of the animal.
6
5. Overall, it improves the production company’s image, and can be used positively for
marketing, while helping to avoid costly bad publicity.
In contrast to Grandin’s assessment, there are many who believe improving animal welfare
can only have economic gains if society desires and elects to pay higher prices for animal
commodities with high welfare standards. McInerney (1991) explained the difference between
price and value, then claimed, “Economic values are measures placed on things, not ones they
automatically and always possess”. Value is a social construct, and if the social value of
increasing animal welfare exceeds the increased price of production, then there are net gains to
be had. For example, Simpson & Rollin (1984) examined the animal welfare issue of decreasing
overcrowding and its relationship to consumers being willing to pay higher premiums. They
ascertained that while price was a factor, many consumers accepted the theoretically higher
costs. In this way, farmers and producers would not experience negative financial
consequences from increased welfare, and consumers would be satisfied with their purchase
decisions. Vetter (2014) agreed with this mentality, as they explained, “Contrary to popular
belief, in the developed countries, price is not the primary determinant behind food purchases .
. . People seek not the cheapest food items but those with characteristics they want, so they
are searching for maximum consumer benefit” (Vetter, 2014, pp. 125). To reinforce this idea,
Gavinelli & Park (2007) found that, “Consumers are willing to pay an average of 17–60 percent
more for eggs from non‐cage systems”. Kehlbacher et al. (2012) stipulated that there is an
optimization for animal welfare and consumer’s willingness to pay, determined through
consumer studies, varying regionally. They emphasized that for proper evaluation, further
7
studies are needed for each product in various locations. Another study by Bennett (1997)
summarized the effects of the European Union converting to improved animal welfare systems,
and correlated that with consumer’s willingness to pay more. While results were similar to the
previous study, Bennett (1997) also postulated that, “The combination of legislation and
producer subsidies may provide an appropriate policy which improves animal welfare without
directly constraining food consumption choice and could help to achieve other policy aims”.
Through subsidies, Bennette raised an important aspect and viable way of sharing economic
benefits to society back with producers. Subsidies or tax‐breaks can be very effective in
mitigating the potential direct costs associated with improving animal welfare.
While the above considerations have mostly existed for some time, there are novel
approaches to addressing animal welfare that have positive economic implications. Arguably,
the most modern of these would be genetic manipulation of farm animal to increase welfare,
production, and efficiency. Jensen (2018) showed the correlation between genetic
manipulation and increased welfare by affecting animal’s intrinsic motivations and behavioral
outlets. While the animals benefit from decreased stress levels, producers gain from increased
ease of handling and product quality.
Animal Welfare Influences on Workers and Public Health
As Temple Grandin noted, along with increasing animal welfare, there are many
potential direct benefits to production workers and animal handlers, dealing mostly with
increased safety and efficiency, leading to fewer injuries. However, there are also benefits to
worker and public health with increased welfare from a correlating decrease in harmful
pathogens and the secondary (and tertiary) effects that come with that improvement. Authors
8
Boyle & O’Driscoll (2011) explained the association between increased stress (poor welfare)
and immunosuppression in farm animals, leading to increased rates of foodborne pathogens.
Clark et al. (2016) agreed with this assessment, and further cited overcrowding as a key issue
promoting disease spread. Furthermore, the authors explained that, “Prophylactic use of
antibiotics was identified as a concern,”, with the possibility of antibiotics entering humans
through animal product consumption. There is also concern about creating diseases with
antibiotic resistance from overuse, as is the case in some strains of E. Coli, which do lead to
grave sickness or death (Saenz, 2004).
Importance of Partnerships in Animal Advocacy
For decades, animal welfare and animal rights groups have opposed each other on many
platforms relating to animal advocacy. Sumner (1988) explored the setbacks caused by this
conflict and found them to be great. Considering the influential coalitions against animal
advocacy, she postulated that, “If both sides move to more defensible theoretical positions,
their remaining differences on that level may be compatible with a broad area of convergence
on practical issues,”. In other words, if the two groups focused on their common goals of
animal advocacy for greater animal wellbeing, they would find more common ground, and be
able to unite in efforts. Another important aspect of animal advocacy is establishing
partnerships with farmers and producers, especially those who see the benefits of increased
animal welfare and, in turn, welfare standards of their own accord. However, there are many
challenges to overcome here, particularly in regard to the perception of animal welfare as an
issue and the magnitude of it. Velde et al. (2002) highlighted the difference in opinions that
farmers and the public can have, which ultimately leads to fundamental disagreement on
9
welfare issues: “According to [farmers], nothing is wrong with animal welfare in livestock
breeding. The perceptions of the consumers we interviewed are more divergent, but generally
negative. Both groups show ambivalence as a result of discrepancies between perceptions and
behavior”. This ‘ambivalence’ on both sides is counterproductive, and if it is to be amended,
each side must find motivations that resonate with each other. This is important, as
partnerships with farmers and producers can have great animal advocacy benefits.
Summary of Literature Review
Dawkins (2016) composed a thorough compilation of essentially all of the major aspects
of the aforementioned arguments. Resolution to conflicts between producers and animal
advocates were found in many ways, but all related back to potential financial gains to
consumers and producers alike. Dawkins listed the most important aspect to consider here,
highlighting the main strategies explored above:
“These benefits [of animal welfare] include increased profits through: (i) reduced
mortality; (ii) improved health; (iii) improved product quality; (iv) improved
disease resistance and reduced medication; (v) lower risk of zoonoses and
foodborne diseases; (vi) farmer job satisfaction and contributions to Corporate
Social Responsibility; and (vii) the ability to command higher prices from
consumers. Current conflicts between animal welfare and production may be
resolved by future developments in genetics, management practices and new
technology. Financial benefits reinforce, rather than replace, ethical arguments
for good animal welfare.”
10
Section 3: Methods and Approaches
In pursuit of effective animal advocacy strategies, three methods were used for data
gathering: a literature review of articles on the topic, interviews of industry professionals, and a
web‐based search for animal advocacy examples.
In the literature review, accredited sources are cited and discussed to focus on works that
highlight the social benefits of increased animal welfare, particularly economic and public
health related studies.
Six interviews were conducted through phone calls with professional leaders in
advocacy, animal welfare, and animal rights. Three interviews with advocacy experts were
made, with two professionals working directly in animal advocacy, and one having a strong
background in economic policy. Additionally, two executive directors of animal rights
organizations and one president of a large animal welfare organization, all of whom engage in
animal advocacy, were interviewed. The interview itself followed the following format: to
begin, questions about the interviewee’s current positions and involvement in advocacy were
asked, followed by inquiring about all of the animal advocacy strategies they know of or
employ, along with their analysis of each strategy’s effectiveness. After this free‐response
section, specific questions about the role and influence of economics were asked, along with
potential responses to typical Big Ag. arguments. If not discussed in the free‐response section,
inquiries were made about other advocacy platforms, such as the role of emphasizing increased
public health, and thoughts revolving around the animal welfare versus animal rights issues
were explored, as well as the importance of partnerships in general. Each interview was
11
immensely helpful and contributed valuable information to this capstone; collected data from
these sources is presented in the following section, Data Analysis.
While researching peer‐reviewed articles on animal advocacy is important, much can
also be learned through directly examining the animal advocacy platforms and arguments
presented online by various organizations, including those advocating for animal welfare,
animal rights, and Big Ag. In that regard, an online exploration of these groups has proven
useful in understanding the current state of animal advocacy, as well as in examining current
and past ballot initiatives. Some of the websites explored include those of the Humane Society
of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the
Humane Legislative Fund, Prevent Cruelty California, People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, the Humane Farming Alliance, the Humane League, Ballotpedia, the Association of
California Egg Farmers, the National Pork Producers Council, and the American Veal
Association.
This Capstone follows participatory action research typology. Not only is the
information uncovered relevant to the nonprofit sector, but several stakeholders that have key
interest in animal advocacy strategies also participated. Results are considered through various
domains, including evaluating the economic, social, and political implications. On a personal
level, my philosophy has been geared towards an animal welfare bias. Through attending the
University of California, Davis as an undergraduate and majoring in animal welfare and
behavior, I was conditioned to explore ways to increase animal welfare and productivity at the
same time, examining cutting‐edge research that my professors were conducting in the field.
However, the purpose of this capstone is not to promote the welfare mentality or to slander
12
animal rights efforts. To the best of my ability, I have made an effort to remain objective, and
solely present aggregate information from the aforementioned sources. Further, through this
study, I have learned a great deal on a personal level and have come to better understand some
of the merits behind the animal rights mentality and approach. Therefore, I do not consider
myself to have discovered which viewpoint is right or wrong; all I can claim is to better
understand the state of animal advocacy than I previously have, along with some of the
strategies that are capable of truly making changes to the current situation.
Section 4: Data Analysis
Table 1: Interviewees, Positions, and Stance on Economic Impacts
Interviewee Organization Position Do Economics Affect
Animal Advocacy?
Ethan Pollack The Aspen Institute Associate Director of
Research and Policy Yes
Chris Holbein Humane Society
Legislative Fund
Public Policy Director of
the Farm Animal
Protection Campaign
Yes
Zoe Novic Humane League Director of Grassroots
Advocacy in the Bay Area Yes
Ken White Peninsula Humane
Society, SPCA President Yes
JP Novic
Center for Animal
Protection and
Education
Executive Director Yes
Kim Sturla Animal Place Executive Director Does not engage in this
argument
13
Ethan Pollack: While not directly engaged in animal advocacy, Mr. Pollack is an expert in
economic policy, a key consideration for this project. Additionally, he is very engaged in
advocacy in Washington, D.C., and was kind enough to share many effective advocacy
strategies. The considerations he presented were highly formative in designing subsequent
explorations and interviews. First, he agreed that addressing economic concerns relating to
increased animal welfare should be addressed in order to affect policy. He explained that
politics was a game of both numbers and intensity of the fight, and if one side can dampen the
opposition, even a numerical minority (in terms of both people and accessible funds) can still
achieve their goals. In the case of increasing animal welfare, he noted that advocates must
show how the economic impacts can be either negligible or even positive. To do this, he
suggested first to compile research that has these implications, particularly studies that
originate from the opposition, so there is less that opponents can refute, as it is their own work.
Then, he suggested establishing partnerships with farmers and producers that already have
higher than regulation welfare standards, using them to highlight the feasibility of adopting
new regulations, and as evidence that the new system would remain economically viable. The
partnering farmers and producers themselves would be incentivised to join the advocacy effort,
because it is beneficial for them to have the entire industry adhere to the standards they
already follow, which would help level the overall market and make them relatively more
competitive. Also, Mr. Pollack explained that advocacy for increased animal welfare is often
seen as a liberal agenda, posed by those who want to impose their ideals on others, while
feeling none of the drawbacks themselves. However, when the advocacy comes from a farmer
or producer, that classic Big Ag. argument is nullified. To quote, Mr. Pollack stated, “Farmer
14
versus Pelosi is bad, but Farmer versus farmer is good, even if there are only a few” (Pollack).
Additionally, Mr. Pollack talked about the importance of enforcing current regulations and
standards, as failing to do so allows certain groups to undercut the market, making it harder to
adhere to and advocate for proper standards. Indeed, this is a classic issue relating to Big Ag.,
which has constantly lobbied for decreased oversight authority. Next, he explained the
importance of consumer empowerment, and that advocacy is a highly effective way to educate
consumers. To complement this, he advised to approach the subject not from the standpoint
of ‘Do things this way,’ but rather ‘You care about this aspect, and we can help facilitate your
decision.’ Naturally, that involves having strong knowledge of stakeholder and consumer
opinions and desires. Finally, he noted that in his experience (which is fairly vast, evident from
review of his career), he has found people to be very responsive to health concerns, and less so
about environmental impact, though all benefits to increasing animal welfare should be
explored and used in the right place, at the right time.
Chris Holbein: Mr. Holbein is an influential leader in one of the forerunners of animal
advocacy, the Humane Legislative Fund (HLF), an animal welfare organization. As a 501(c)(4),
he and his team are solely engaged in animal advocacy in Washington, D.C. Further, aside from
his long history advocating for agricultural animals, he currently serves as the Director of Public
Policy for the Farm Animal Campaign, and as such, is one of the most qualified individuals
available to comment on this particular capstone. When asked about how to respond when Big
Ag. argues that increasing animal welfare also increases cost of production to consumers, he
responded that increased costs are minimal, or, at times, increased welfare would actually
increase profit. He cited several studies that illustrated this point, specifically referring to how
15
going cage‐free with laying hens would only increase the cost per egg by two cents. Also, he
referenced a study from the American Veal Association that claimed increasing welfare to new
standards (specifically, the ones outlined in California’s 2018 Proposition 12, the Farm Animal
Confinement Initiative, examined in the case study below) could yield an 11% savings in
industry costs. In addition to these types of benefits to farmers and producers, he explained
several benefits to worker and public health, and the correlating benefits to society, in terms of
improved economy and public health. When asked to comment on opposition to Proposition
12 from certain animal rights organizations, he commented that, “It is disappointing, but we
will continue to put out the facts” (Holbein). He went on to explain that the HFA and PETA are
putting out false information, which is addressed on their website. Also, he explained PETA’s
stance, which is that if industrial animals are treated in terrible ways, more people will become
vegan, so increasing current animal welfare standards is counterproductive to their agenda. In
response, he explained that incremental progress is most effective under our current system
and with our society’s mindset, in the sense that this progress will lead to even more progress.
Lastly, he emphasized the importance of consumer empowerment, particularly advocating for
lab grown meat, which is scheduled to enter the general market by the end of 2018. He noted
that a large upcoming battle will be regarding the usable terminology for this product, as Big
Ag. has lobbied for the term ‘meat’ to solely refer to that which is carved from the carcass of an
animal. In these ways, Mr. Holbein and HLF are fairly congruent with the recommendations
and observations from Mr. Pollack, increasing the credibility of both individuals.
Zoe Novic: As the Director of Grassroots Advocacy in the Bay Area for the Humane
League, an animal rights organization in support of Proposition 12, Ms. Novic (Zoe) contributed
16
an important perspective on animal advocacy, as someone who works directly with the public
and addresses their concerns and perceptions. Through our correspondence it was observed
that, at least in these cases, animal advocacy grassroots efforts dealing directly with the public
are more effective when addressing health concerns and generating empathy for the animals
affected. This is opposed to the economic perspective, which seems to be more often argued
by Big Ag. and animal advocates in Washington, D.C., who deal directly with legislators and
policy enactors. However, when asked for ways to address economic concerns of increasing
animal welfare, she cited how in Massachusetts, a similar initiative to Proposition 12 was
passed, which resulted in only a one‐cent increase in the price, per egg. Also, she emphasized
the health benefits generated from increasing animal welfare. When asked to respond to the
stance of HFA and PETA, though Ms. Novic (Zoe) wanted to remain ‘diplomatic’ in regard to
fellow animal rights organizations; she did explain that it was, “Important to work hard to move
in the right direction,” and that, “Advocacy has an educational component, which has an
exponential impact” (Novic). Novic also explained how the Humane League’s efforts to
convince retailers like Walmart, to only buy products with high welfare standards has
influenced the market and facilitated current animal advocacy efforts. Ms. Novic (Zoe) and the
Humane League also seem to be in‐line with several of the recommendations from Mr. Pollack.
Ken White: Representing the Peninsula Humane Society (PHS), a branch of the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Mr. White offered quick and direct thoughts on
animal advocacy, which were highly representative of the general animal welfare stance. He
emphasized focusing on human health, economic opportunities, and to stop fighting between
17
animal advocacy organizations. In regard to the latter, his stance is best represented from his
direct quote regarding this issue:
“The highly Balkanized world of animal welfare has so many different voices
shouting at each other on social media that it’s almost impossible to ever hear a
unified voice speaking in opposition to what should be seen as a common target.
This same lack of consensus, often actual infighting, has long hurt legislative
agendas with elected officials recognizing that there is rarely a way to stand with
one group of animal advocates without alienating another . . . I suggest that
animal welfare advocates would do well to look at the success of other
movements and find ways to bring in other constituent voices to thereby
broaden the voice speaking out for the cause. Farmed animal issues, for
example, need to be presented not as a vegetarian/vegan agenda, but be better,
more forcefully aligned with issues of human health and economic
discrimination.”
Mr. White is a highly reputable source, and even an author for a column in the San Francisco
Chronicle. His recommendations to focus on human health, economic benefits, and cessation
of animal advocacy infighting are consistent with the opinions of the above interviewees. He
serves as a strong reinforcer of the aforementioned stances.
JP Novic: While Ms. Novic (JP) runs a mid‐sized animal rights shelter and education
center, her life and career have been characterized by animal advocacy, including former
involvement with HFA, which, along with her quality insights, make her a valuable reference.
While she agreed that addressing the economic argument was important, she stipulated that
18
she did not know much on the matter, and rather focused on the ethics of the situation.
However, she noted every viable strategy for improving animal welfare should be employed,
including economic justification for increasing industrial agriculture standards. When asked
about HFA and PETA’s actions against Proposition 12, she explained that, “It is hard to work
within a movement when there is disagreement, but all contributions are important, and
groups should be civil”. She continued with, “Change requires a multifaceted approach,
including focusing on issues like climate change, welfare, and public health; it is made through
education, legislation, and access to alternative options.” On the last point, she related the
issue back to economics: “Costs of alternative meat products must be affordable and available;
currently they are out of most people’s price range.” This later insight provides a novel
viewpoint of economics as related to animal advocacy and should indeed be addressed as a
part of a multifaceted approach to enacting change.
Kim Sturla: As Executive Director of Animal Place, an animal rights organization and
farm animal sanctuary, Ms. Sturla was exceedingly busy, and did not have much time to
converse. As such, only a few pertinent questions were explored. Particularly, her stance on
using potential economic benefits in animal advocacyd, to which she responded that her
organization does not engage in that particular discourse. However, aside from pure, ethics‐
based arguments, she stipulated that Animal Place did promote increased health from reducing
animal product use. Overall, the efforts appeared grassroots in nature, such as their
frequenting college campuses and events, where they attempt to educate people and help
them empathize with the plight of animals.
19
Summary of Interviews
Through interviews with these professionals, much insight was gained and reinforced
through their fairly consistent arguments. Overall, most agree that addressing the economic
arguments posed by Big Ag. is an important aspect of animal advocacy. Further, it is generally
agreed that a multifaceted approach yields the largest results. Common strategies include
citing studies showing positive correlation between public health, economics, and employee
welfare with improved animal welfare. Additionally, partnerships are highly valued, especially
with farmers and producers. Many feel that the dissent within the animal advocacy community
is a large hindrance, though none explicitly commented on how to alleviate the situation or
come to an understanding. This aspect will be an important part of follow‐up research. Finally,
other aspects, including increased regulatory enforcement and consumer empowerment, were
mentioned multiple times.
Economic Counter Argument to Increased Welfare
Big Ag. frequently counters increasing animal welfare standards with the argument that
such change would increase cost of production, which would burden farmers, producers, and
consumers. It is an important component of this capstone to explain their concept of the
relationship between production and animal welfare, so that each aspect may be addressed.
Figure 1 below is a helpful visualization, highlighting Big Ag.’s concept of the relationship
between…. However, by only examining direct costs, the overall economic implications may be
than what is interpreted through figure 1. The argument does not factor in other economic
forces that can make this situation show generation of net financial savings and returns.
20
Figure 1: Big Ag.’s Interpretation of the Relation Between Animal Welfare & Production
Source: McInerney, J. (2004). Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra.
The figure above, though omitting many considerations, explains the basis for the
economic argument against increasing animal welfare, showing a negative correlation with
productivity in viable ranges (beyond Point B). The vertical axis represents animal welfare and
the horizontal axis represents production efficiency, a.k.a. economic gains.
● Point A signifies wild animals and a natural level of welfare.
● Point B is the theoretical maximum for animal welfare that could be achieved. After this,
welfare is traded for production, approaching Point D.
● Point D is the minimum welfare standards by law, below is legally ‘cruelty.’
● A er Point E, production regresses, as animals sicken or get injured.
● Point C is the socially agreed compromise between welfare and production.
21
Case Study: Ca. 2018 Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative
In 2008, California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2 (63%) ‐ “Standards for
Confining Farm Animals,” which was a major win for animal welfare (Ballotpedia, 2018). This
November, California will vote on Proposition 12, the “Farm Animal Confinement Initiative,”
which is an update of Prop 2, specifying gaps or lack of clarity in the regulation, established
back in 2008. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), an animal welfare organization,
is leading the fight for Prop 12, through its ballot measure committee, “Prevent Cruelty
California.” Supporters, and Prop 12 itself, state, “The purpose of this Act is to prevent animal
cruelty by phasing out* extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the
health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and
associated negative fiscal impacts on the State of California” (Prevention of Cruelty to Farm
Animals Act, 2018). (Note*: Phasing out reflects the mentality of animal welfare organizations;
that incremental steps are better than nothing and may be the only way to change the entire
system, slowly but effectively, with minimal negative impacts on all involved, including
producers, consumers, and the industry itself.)
Opposition comes from the Association of California Egg Farmers, National Pork
Producers Council, HFA, Friends of Animals, PETA, and some other animal rights organizations.
HFA sponsored and created the initiative “Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud” to
fight Prop 12 (Ballotpedia, 2018). Opposing arguments include:
The Association of California Egg Farmers: "HSUS is reneging on the original agreement and this expedited timeline may result in supply disruptions, price spikes and a shortage of eggs for sale” (McGreevy, 2017)
22
National Pork Producers Council: "Changes in housing systems, which come with significant costs that increase food prices, should be driven by consumer purchasing decisions, not the agenda of any activist group" (McGreevy, 2017).
The Humane Farming Association: "The Humane Society of the United States is ... perpetuating the suffering of millions of egg‐laying hens throughout California" (The Humane Farming Association, 2018)
Citing sources usually associated with their opponents, like the American Veal
Association, proponents argue that increases in animal welfare through this proposition can be
done in a way that also increases profits, particularly in veal and pork production. They claim
that studies show a potential two‐cent increase in price per cage‐free egg, but stipulate that
when human health benefits are taken into account, there is a large positive net economic
effect. Proponents also explain the hidden costs to society that producers are not affected by,
unless litigation occurs. Their main argument here is:
“The FDA estimates that 79,000 Americans are sickened every year by
consuming eggs tainted with Salmonella. Research shows that cage confinement
facilities are significantly more likely to harbor this dangerous bacteria, which is
why the Center for Food Safety endorses Prop 12” (Prevent Cruelty Ca., 2018).
While there were increases in California egg prices after the full adoption of Prop 2,
Prevent Cruelty Ca. explained that it was not due to animal welfare regulations. Instead, they
cite an outbreak of bird flu and the egg industry ‘dragging their feet’ while artificially inflating
prices. Also, they refer to how California egg prices were below the national average one year
after all Prop 2 regulations went into effect. Finally, they highlight benefits to the company and
workers corresponding to increased animal welfare. Less injuries, sickness, and subsequent
23
company compensation and sick leave are incurred in higher‐welfare situations. Also, they give
specific examples of benefits to farm workers and producers, highlighting farms that have
already adopted these policies.
Section 5: Implications and Recommendations
Animal advocacy has intrinsic ties to the nonprofit sector. Observations from the
literature review support the statements made by those willing to be interviewed for this
capstone. It has been observed that usually more than one approach to animal advocacy is
employed. However, considering the formidable forces that animal advocacy must overcome, a
multifaceted approach that utilizes all of these approaches, strategies, and arguments is
needed to make the largest gains for the effort as a whole. In this way, not only will animal
advocacy be maximized, but through considering the standpoints of producers and consumers,
solutions can be found that benefit all parties involved. Though arguments may have specific
tactics, animal advocacy, other than ethically‐based arguments, often relates back to economic
forces. Increased public health, improved factory working conditions, and improved product
quality are all benefits of raising industrial agricultural animal welfare that have strong
economic implications. As mentioned previously, the strategies uncovered here, such as
partnerships and looking to new technologies, are not unique to animal advocacy, but apply to
all efforts within the nonprofit sector that seek to change systems in a way that might disrupt
the status quo and settle contending philosophies.
24
As a consequence of these findings, it is hoped that animal advocacy organizations broaden
their approaches as wide as possible, and also consider not only their position, but how to
make gains for all parties involved as well. Specific recommendations are as follows:
1. Establish cooperation between animal advocacy groups: Animal Rights and Animal
Welfare organizations must come to an understanding and unite to stop wasting effort
on each other and maximize their impact.
2. Have various animal advocacy arguments and perspectives: A multidisciplinary
approach that goes beyond the ethical/moral standpoint is crucial and considering
potential economic and human health benefits is imperative for successful advocacy.
3. Partner with producers: Particularly producers with welfare standards above current
regulation, yet are economically viable, should be sought.
4. Make macro‐level economic arguments: All economic gains to society must be
addressed, on a social level, especially since on a direct production level, costs may
appear to increase, but net impact on society results in gains.
5. Reciprocate socioeconomic benefits to producers: Reward and compensate producers
for increasing welfare standards, such as through subsidies or tax‐breaks.
6. Negotiate reasonable time‐frames for change: Ensure that reasonable and incremental
timeframes for change are agreed upon, so costs here are minimal to producers and, in
turn, impacts are minimized on consumers.
7. Establish regulations and enforce them: Produces strive for lowest costs, and when
they cut corners, that undermines the market, making it harder for those adhering to
high welfare to compete. For a level market, have regulations creating equal
opportunity and support legislation that empowers regulatory facilities.
8. Advocate for decreasing produce and alternative meat product cost: The current price
point is unaffordable for most, and people need options to be able to change lifestyles.
Innovations and new technologies, such as genetic manipulation and lab grown meat,
should be pursued. The complementary recommendation here is to advocate to have
Big Ag. pay for its hidden costs, like what has been done with Big Tobacco and the Oil
25
Industry. In this way, animal products would become more expensive, truly representing
their costs, and making alternative products relatively cheaper and more viable.
9. Conduct more studies on health benefits: Show positive correlation between animal
welfare and animal, consumer, and societal health through high quality and extensive
studies, to better address the situation.
10. Conduct more studies on economic benefits: Show the true correlation between animal
welfare economics, including indirect and direct gains and costs to producers,
consumers, and society. Examine this from various perspectives, including the future of
industrial animal agriculture.
Section 6: Conclusions
Increasing animal welfare has implications beyond the wellbeing of the animal.
Producers, consumers, and society as a whole are impacted by changes in standards and
regulations. While promoting animal welfare as an ethical and moral obligation does make
headway in the fight for animal advocacy, it is not enough to yield maximal change upon the
animal agricultural system. To further animal advocacy, a variety of strategies and arguments
must be explored. Notable ones include addressing economic implications, public health
benefits, forming partnerships, and exploring innovations that have benefits to animals and
people alike. Economically‐based arguments are particularly important to address, as they are
widely used through Big Ag. lobbying and advocacy. Studies and partnerships with producers
that demonstrate increased welfare standards are necessary to properly respond to economic
arguments and prove the change can be beneficial to society. The application of the strategies
26
explored here extends beyond animal advocacy, and into any advocacy effort nonprofits are
likely to face.
The major limitations of this study are twofold. First, there is always more to be
uncovered, and this examination of effective animal advocacy strategies is by no means
complete. Exploration is an ongoing process, and further studies should strive to increase the
pool of accurate raw data on aspects relating to improving animal welfare. Second, while the
goal was to be as objective as possible, considerations in this capstone were based more in an
‘animal welfare’ philosophy. It should be noted that there are many animal rights arguments
that have merit. For example, if improving animal welfare does indeed correlate with economic
gains, then producers and consumers may be incentivised to increase productivity and
consumption as a result. While there are counter arguments here, this effect is possible. In
that sense, increasing welfare could be counterproductive to the overall animal rights goal of
ending all animal use and exploitation. Studies substantiating these positions and comparing
likely results to other solutions within animal advocacy are needed to better understand the
complex dynamic between animal welfare, animal use, and society.
A final recommendation for further study, which I will be following up with in particular,
is to explore the relationship dynamics between animal welfare and animal rights organizations.
Finding ways to mediate their differences would greatly add to the resources available to
promote animal advocacy. Similarly, relations with animal advocates and farmers and
producers should be further explored, to find as many mutual benefits as possible.
27
List of References
Aristotle, Roberts, W. R., Bywater, I., In Solmsen, F., & Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric. New York: Modern Library.
Ballotpedia. (n.d.). California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018).
Retrieved August 2, 2018, from https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_12,_Farm_Animal_Confinement_Initiative_(2018)
Bennett, R. (1997). Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy, 22(4), 281‐288.
doi:10.1016/s0306‐9192(97)00019‐5 Boyle, L. A., & O’Driscoll, K. (2011). Ch. 11 ‐ Animal welfare: an essential component in food
safety and quality. A Holistic Approach to Food Traceability, Safety, Quality and Authenticity (pp. 169‐186). Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition
Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., & Frewer, L. J. (2016). A Systematic Review
of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(3), 455‐478. doi:10.1007/s10806‐016‐9615‐x
Dawkins, M. S. (2016). Animal welfare and efficient farming: Is conflict inevitable?. Animal
Production Science, 57(2). doi:10.1071/an15383 Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal
welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187‐205. Gandin, T. (2015). Chapter 14, the Effect of Economic Factors on the Welfare of Livestock and
Poultry. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach (2nd ed.) (pp.278‐291). UK: Cabi Organisation.
Gavinelli, A., & Park, M. (2007). Ch 7 ‐ Farm Animal Welfare: In Legislatures, Corporate
Boardrooms, and Private Kitchens. In D. Salem & A. Rowan (Eds.), The State of the Animals IV (pp. 131‐132). Washington, D.C: Humane Society Press.
Huehnergarth, N. F. (2016, May 06). Big Agriculture Bullies and Lobbies To Keep Americans In
The Dark. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2016/05/05/big‐ag‐bullies‐and‐lobbies‐to‐keep‐americans‐in‐the‐dark/
28
Jensen, P. (2018). Genetics and Genomics of Animal Welfare. In J. Mench (Eds.), Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare: Science and Practice (pp. 33‐43). Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing.
Johnson, S. (n.d.). The Politics of Meat. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/ Kehlbacher, A., Bennett, R., & Balcombe, K. (2012). Measuring the consumer benefits of
improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy, 37(6), 627‐633. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002
McGreevy, P. (2017, August 29). Live in California and buy eggs? If voters approve this in 2018,
they'll need to be from cage‐free hens. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/politics/la‐pol‐ca‐cage‐free‐eggs‐ballot‐initiative‐20170829‐story.html
McInerney, J. (1991). A Socio‐Economic Perspective on Animal Welfare. Outlook on Agriculture,
20(1), 51‐56. doi:10.1177/003072709102000110 McInerney, J. (2004). Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a Study Undertaken for
the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. PETA. (n.d.). What is the difference between "animal rights" and "animal welfare"? Retrieved
August 2, 2018, from https://www.peta.org/about‐peta/faq/what‐is‐the‐difference‐between‐animal‐rights‐and‐animal‐welfare/
Prevent Cruelty Ca. (2018). Resources. Retrieved from https://preventcrueltyca.com/resources Saenz, Y., Brinas, L., Dominguez, E., Ruiz, J., Zarazaga, M., Vila, J., & Torres, C. (2004).
Mechanisms of Resistance in Multiple‐Antibiotic‐Resistant Escherichia coli Strains of Human, Animal, and Food Origins. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 48(10), 3996‐4001. doi:10.1128/aac.48.10.3996‐4001.2004
Simpson, J. R., & Rollin, B. E. (1984). Economic consequences of animal rights programs. Journal
of Business Ethics, 3(3), 215‐225. doi:10.1007/bf00382923 Sumner, L. W. (1988). A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine: Animal Welfare and
Animal Rights. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 13(2), 159‐175. The Humane Farming Association. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2018, from https://www.hfa.org/
29
United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2011). Overview of U.S. Livestock, Poultry, and Aquaculture Production in 2010 and Statistics on Major Commodities. Riverdale, Maryland: USDA APHIS
Velde, H. T., Aarts, N., & Woerkum, C. V. (2002). Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers' and
Consumers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203‐219. doi:10.1023/a:1015012403331
Ventura, B. A., Keyserlingk, M. A., & Weary, D. M. (2014). Animal Welfare Concerns and Values
of Stakeholders Within the Dairy Industry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 109‐126. doi:10.1007/s10806‐014‐9523‐x
Vetter, S., Vasa, L., & Ózsvári, L. (2014). Economic Aspects of Animal Welfare. Acta Polytechnica
Hungarica, 11(7), 119‐134. doi:10.12700/aph.11.07.2014.07.8
30
Appendix A. California's Proposition 2: "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act"
(2008).
31
Appendix 1. California's Proposition 12: Amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act (2018).
32
33
34
35
36
Author’s Bio
Greg Finkelstein has been an animal advocate since first grade. Beginning with a strong love and appreciation of animals, Greg sought ways to improve their situations and happiness through his career goals. Attending the University of California, Davis, was very illuminating. There, he studied ways to increase animal welfare and production at the same time, through innovation and better, more knowledgeable, practices. He studied under professors who were at the cutting edge of animal welfare research, including alternatives to battery‐cages and improving feed quality. Exploring these dynamics and seeing the potential interrelatedness of animal welfare and benefits to society, Greg decided to pursue efforts that sought these types of solutions.
After volunteering extensively for the Peninsula Humane Society and having some powerful experiences with animal rescue during the 2015 California fires, Greg decided to seek out a graduate degree that would get him closer to his goals. After being recommended to consider USF, Greg entered the Master of Nonprofit Administration Program in the School of Management. There, not only did he come to understand many aspects of nonprofits and leadership from exceptional professors, but he discovered a passion for nonprofit advocacy, and realized that for him, this would be the way to maximize his impact. Now, he is exploring a career in promoting animal advocacy, starting with agricultural animal welfare, his primary background.
37